[talk-au] place now remoteness rendering

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu May 5 02:26:22 UTC 2016

On 5/05/2016 10:35 AM, Ben Kelley wrote:
> Hi.
> The remoteness doesn't need to change the definition of the place 
> (e.g. make a hamlet a town) but rather only change how it is rendered.
> A very remote track might show, as might a remote hamlet.
> I agree this might be difficult to implement in the renderer.

Then I think that is a separate issue to tagging.
I have modified the subject to reflect the divergence of subject.

Rendering where a large area is blank (or at least not 'full') I think 
the render can go to the next layer and render that .. repeat until 
there is enough to display.
This would fill the map with data - making the map more usefull.

>   - Ben.
> -- 
> Ben Kelley
> ben.kelley at gmail.com <mailto:ben.kelley at gmail.com>
> Sent from my Windows XP PC
> On 5 May 2016 10:26, "Warin" <61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Remoteness .. nice!
>     It is based on population density .. the same argument I make for
>     lowering the population barriers for city/town/village for
>     Australia. So, yes, I do like it.
>     How far to take the 'remoteness' effect on the population barriers
>     to?
>     If the area has very little population then 1 person could be
>     defined as a city? NO, certain things are expected in a city ..
>     certainly more than 1 person!
>     So there are limits as to how far to go in this direction.
>     Would need to revert to
>     city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100
>     for 'Major cities' and 'Inner regional' areas -
>     as judged by the 'remoteness' thing as I can see no reason not to
>     use the world wide population points here as the population
>     densities are similar?
>     These areas are in close proximity and would be similar around the
>     world so the chosen population points should be suitable.
>     The 'Outer Regional' areas ... about half the population density so
>     city>50,000>town>5,000>village>100>hamlet>50
>      The 'Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
>     city>25,000>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
>     The 'Very Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
>     city>12,500>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
>     Err Winton would be come a village .. Longreach becomes a town...
>     would that be acceptable?
>     I think that works for my perception of those places.
>     It will add to the complexity but be justifiable technically. Is
>     it worth the added complexity?
>     On 4/05/2016 6:28 PM, Alex Sims wrote:
>>     I’ve had an involvement in this discussion in the past and wonder
>>     if a way forward might be to include an adjusting factor for
>>     remoteness.
>>     If you have a look at the map at
>>     http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure
>>     which shows the Australian Remoteness Index this suggests that we
>>     could define town, hamlet, etc according to population but then
>>     adjust the population limits downward for remote areas.
>>     The other point I’d make (as I did some time ago) is that the
>>     labels are “British English” labels and form a hierarchy where
>>     the names make sense in the UK but shouldn’t be taken as a slight
>>     against any area. They are merely a series of words that define
>>     the level of population centre.
>>     Looking at
>>     http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural
>>     this seems to support and adjustment based on remoteness in the
>>     Australian context.
>>     Alex
>>>     On 4 May 2016, at 8:11 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>     On 4/05/2016 12:50 AM, Christopher Barham wrote:
>>>>>     On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>     <SNIP>
>>>>>     Why judge on the population?
>>>>>     Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical,
>>>>>     Education ... they go hand in hand.
>>>>>     Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns,
>>>>>     villages .. and collected by the ABS. So verifiable and
>>>>>     accessible.
>>>>>     Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly.
>>>>>     Usually the relationship between population centres remains
>>>>>     fairly static .. if one grows so do the surrounding ones.
>>>>>     Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it
>>>>>     satisfies the KISS principle.
>>>>     </SNIP>
>>>>     City is not just a function of population - It’s can also be a
>>>>     political appointment/status? - e.g. Charters Towers and
>>>>     Redcliffe are cities :
>>>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia
>>>     Yes there is an 'official designation system' ... subject to
>>>     political pressure and separate rules for each state.
>>>     I think the best guide we have is the population, certainly I
>>>     think it is much better than the officially given 'status'.
>>>     ----------------------
>>>     I did leave out of the original post that the ABS data may
>>>     include more 'cities' with populations over 10,000 than the
>>>     present OSM data base contains ... yet to sort that out.
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Talk-au mailing list
>>>     Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Talk-au mailing list
>>     Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-au mailing list
>     Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20160505/b8b384cb/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list